Talk:Final stellation of the icosahedron/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Hello, I will be the reviewer for this article. I may not be a mathematician, but I feel that this article could use more content. The fact that the article has two sections is very scary. They discuss the properties of the complete icosahedron, but I don't see info on why it's important in math. Is it merely a type of solid, or does it possess special properties that are notable in the mathematical community? Are there any practical applications in real life?

• I have added some more information to the article. The unique property of the complete icosahedron is that it is the final stage in the stellations of the icosahedron, it includes all of the regions in the icosahedron's stellation diagram, and as such is arguably the most complex object that can be produced from the regular Platonic solids. As far as I am aware, it has no practical applications in real life. Do you have any more suggestions for additional content ? Gandalf61 (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The additional content is certainly helpful. Could you briefly explain the stellation diagram? This would definitely be helpful to average readers who aren't familiar with the topic. --Edge3 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Added a link to stellation diagram. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Also, I think that you should explain the following: "The Du Val symbol of the complete icosahedron is H."--Edge3 (talk) 21:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Added a brief explanation. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, the lead is supposed to be only a summary of the body of the article. See WP:LEAD. I recommend that you move the detailed info to body paragraphs and expand them.--Edge3 (talk) 02:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have changed the lead and created a new "Background" section for some material that was previously in the lead. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Provide basic info on the golden ratio, and point out that it's represented by phi. This will cause less confusion in the "As a three-dimensional solid" section--Edge3 (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have added a link to the golden ratio article. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• "It is sometimes called the echidnahedron[5] after the echidna, or spiny anteater, a small mammal that is covered with coarse hair and spines." - Not supported by source.--Edge3 (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, I have taken out "after" and put the explanation of echidna in brackets. Readers may draw their own conclusions. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you have a source to back up the claim that many, not just one, mathematicians call it the echidnahedron?--Edge3 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Not many, but more than one - the term is used in references 6 and 7. But I have changed "It is sometimes called" to "It has been called". Gandalf61 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
• The echidnahedron naming is used with the Mathematica community and MathWorld, sourced back to a polyhedron database library in the 1990's. The reference is now moved to the history section. Tom Ruen (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Coxeter source seems useless in the first sentence. Perhaps it would be more relevant in the first paragraph of the Background section. --Edge3 (talk) 04:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• The Coxeter source is important because it shows that the article,s title, "complete icosahedron", is indeed used in the literature to refer to this object, and is not a neologism or another term for the great icosahedron etc. This needs to be established in the lead, where the term if first used. I think the reference should stay where it is. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ok--Edge3 (talk) 21:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I would also like to see at least one source in the begging of the "As a star icosahedron" section. (WP:SCG) --Edge3 (talk) 21:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I have added a source and have rewritten the paragraph so that the calculation of the numbers of sides, vertices and edges is clearer. Gandalf61 (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good job! Does 9/4 refer to Schläfli symbol? If so, please provide a link. --Edge3 (talk) 22:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• • 9/4 is similar to Schläfli symbol, {9/4}, but the second implies a regular star polygon. But it has the same "winding" rule - 9 pointed star, connecting every 4th vertex, so it wraps around the origin 4 times to complete. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• File:First compound stellation of icosahedron.png and File:Zeroth stellation of icosahedron.png both have very ambiguous licences. Would you happen to know if they're free or not?--Edge3 (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• I just posted a message on the talk page of the uploader, Tomruen. --Edge3 (talk) 02:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I emailed the Vladimir Bulatov, offered some friendlier licensing options. I emailed him before when I first uploaded the images. Tom Ruen (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok. The other pictures in the template are still free, right?--Edge3 (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I really HATED the sectional flow as it was, so I reworked it significantly, hopefully better. It would be nice to expand the history more, but at least I added two short statements about Brückner and Wheeler. Overall it is sort of confusing, really three things going on (1) Stellation generation (2) Visible surface polyhedron interpretatio (3) Star polyhedron interpretation. All three deserve attention. Tom Ruen (talk) 04:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I like what you've done. I was actually planning to recommend name changes for the sections, but you pretty much took care of it. Here are a few more recommendations:

• Change the heading of the first table/infobox from "As a simple surface" to "Complete icosahedron".
• Try to get a summary of the History section in the lead per WP:LEAD. --Edge3 (talk) 04:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
• Move File:Icosahedron stellation diagram center.png to the "As a simple surface" section
• Move File:Bruckner Taf XI Fig 14.JPG to the top of the History section--Edge3 (talk) 04:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done, not satisfied, but all my brain can handle, glad if anyone else wants to rework differently. I reduced a unified the stat table to the bare minimum, and moved more pictures to each sections. I really felt it needed 3 sections, the stellation construction, and the two distict interpretations. I expanded the history section, moved it to the end, but unsure what's a good placement. Tom Ruen (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the Kepler info in the history section?--Edge3 (talk) 14:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I've combined all three sections into an Interpretations section. Also, I think that the stellation information in the lead should be shortened, and the rest of the info could be moved to the "As a stellation" section. Remember that the lead should primarily be a summary of what's in the body. --Edge3 (talk) 15:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you please add a summary of the History section to the lead as well?--Edge3 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Done. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This article now is worthy of GA status, but there is always room for improvement.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Most of the info provided qualifies as common knowledge (among mathematicians) and therefore don't need a lot of sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The History section could always be expanded into full paragraphs, but that's not necessary for GA purposes.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images have good captions. The two images mentioned above have licensing issues, but I'm not going to let that delay the GA process.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Good job!